Essayist: Knowledge has been defined

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct72% picked this

   asserting that the objection is based on a belief about the reliability of clairvoyance rather than on the nature

   Why this is right

   Did the author say, the reason for the objection is our belief about the reliability of clairvoyance, not about this definition of knowledge? Sure, the author said, I agree we would reject (object) to these claims, but we would do so because we really do not believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process. The author asserted that we object because of our beliefs about the reliability of clairvoyance. The final sentence is elaborating that this definition is not the problem, because were we to think that clairvoyance were a reliable process, it would satisfy the definition and we would happily accept calling it knowledge.

   Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   72%
2. B

   Contradicted12% picked this

   asserting that the case of clairvoyance is one of knowledge even though we do not really believe in

   The author "agrees that we would reject a clairvoyant person's claim to know certain things based on this power". In other words, "You're right --- if a clairvoyant person claims to know XYZ via clairvoyance, we'd say you don't know XYZ." Our author thinks that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge. He only thinks it would switch to being a case of knowledge if we were to switch into considering it a reliable process.

   12%
3. C

   Contradicted1% picked this

   arguing against the assumption that clairvoyance

   The author accepts (in a plural first person pronoun) that "we really do not believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process". He's not arguing against that assumption. He accepts the assumption that clairvoyance is unreliable.

   1%
4. D

   Out of Scope: personal choice1% picked this

   explaining that the definition of knowledge is a matter of

   The author never says the definition is a matter of personal choice. The author is defending this definition against an objection, saying that a supposed counterexample isn't really a counterexample. But he never explains that "how one defines knowledge is really up to them".

   1%
5. E

   Not a Case of "Reliable Process"14% picked this

   demonstrating that the case of clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge and does not fit

   So, so close. The author demonstrates that, the case of clairvoyance is not a case of reliable process and thus does not fit the definition of knowledge. The author does acknowledge that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge, but that isn't part of defending the definition. The defense of the definition comes when the author says, "the reason clairvoyance isn't knowledge is because of reliable process, not because of bad definition."

   14%